Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Thanks Shafat.  Such a very simple question got some interesting
results!

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Shafat Qazi [SMTP:seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org]
> Sent:	Wednesday, March 22, 2000 8:56 PM
> To:	seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject:	Re: Quick/Easy Question for Seismic List
> 
> Michael:
> 
> 17.76 inches is wrong. Your answer of 1.48 inches appears to be
> correct, 
> although little less than I am used to see. (0.166%)
> 
> The height used should be in feet not in inches. The formula uses
> feet. See 
> then definition of the story height.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Shafat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 03/22/00 05:08 PM, you wrote:
> 
> >Is this some kind of a joke!!!  What's the difference if it is in
> inches or
> >feet.  The formula is not empirical such that changing units will
> affect the
> >value of the result.  1.48 ft is obviously equal to 17.76 inches.
> >
> >Alfonso S. Quilala Jr., P.E.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >In a message dated 3/22/00 12:47:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> >mritter(--nospam--at)lgt.lg.com writes:
> >
> ><< Colleagues,
> >
> >  Please help me with a quick question.  I am looking at some calcs
> >  prepared by another engineer, who calculated the allowable story
> drift
> >  for a three story building from BOCA and ran the number based on
> story
> >  height in inches.  In other words, the building height is 74', but
> he
> >  used 888 inches.  This gives the allowable story drift to be
> >  0.02(888")=17.76".
> >
> >  I've always used the story height in feet, which would give an
> allowable
> >  drift of about 1.48".  I was going to show my colleage the code
> section
> >  which says story height is in feet, but could not find it in BOCA,
> UBC,
> >  SBC, Farzad Naiem, or any other text books.  Does anybody have a
> >  reference section showing that the story height, by definition,
> should
> >  be in feet?  I know it must be there, but I'm in a rush and can't
> find
> >  it.
> >
> >  Thanks again for the help!
> >
> >  Michael Ritter, PE >>
> >
> 
>